FF3 ranking talk.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Because the early classes are around for three to four times as long. Giving them equal levels is like arguing that Ashley and Marivel should be given an equal amount of Exp from their starting levels or something.

[Talaysen]

Because the early classes are around for three to four times as long. Giving them equal levels is like arguing that Ashley and Marivel should be given an equal amount of Exp from their starting levels or something.

I was under the impression that we used equal levels for everyone regardless of when they joined and what their level was.  Why are we doing something different here?  Some people in FE join at lower than average, some above average.  But they end up at equal levels.  We do this for just about every other game as well.

Besides, you don't use the early classes for the whole game anyways.  It's not even intuitive to let them have more actions when in-game they're just going to get the same amount pretty much.

And since apparently it wasn't clear, I was saying equal total actions, not equal actions starting from how many they join with.  It makes no difference in this case, but one is consistant with DL standards, the other is not.

[Dark Holy Elf]

I was under the impression that we used equal levels for everyone regardless of when they joined and what their level was.

PS4 stat topic says: Rika Level 47, Rune Level 39

Hmm. Well obviously they aren't equal level. What gives? A few other games do similar things. Determining DL level has always been a game-by-game thing. In this case, what you're proposing would reflect FF3 clearly less well than Meeple's method. Generally we go with the best reflection possible.

(Tangent: Generally I think FE is done very poorly in the DL for level, especially in FE10, but accept it as a convenience and due to the sheer difficulty of determining what everyone's level "should" be.)

Besides, you don't use the early classes for the whole game anyways.

You don't? <_< Well, certainly, you don't have to. But you don't have to stick to a late class for every battle after you get it, either. The proportion should be preserved, even if you want to argue some job changing (and uh, we don't usually assume job changing in the DL, see DL Knight being entirely Knight for growth).

(EDIT, elaborating on this for non-FF3 players: order of getting crystals is Wind, Fire, Water, Earth. Crystal of job listed in parentheses)

*checks his first file, grabs his most-used jobs*

Thief (Wi): Level 74
Warrior (Wi): Level 41
Red Mage (Wi): Level 33
Geomancer (F): Level 27
Black Mage (Wi): Level 25
White Mage (Wi): Level 20
Knight (F): Level 19
Devout (E): Level 14
Summoner (E): Level 14

Hmm... a pattern emerges! (Also apparently I hated water crystal jobs.) Let's try my second file. Generally I experimented a bit less with this one, and used classes I didn't use extensively first playthrough, so no Wind jobs.:

Ranger (F): Level 52
Bard (Wa): Level 44
Viking (Wa): Level 39
Monk (Wi): Level 37 *never used this after getting the Water crystal*
Dark Knight (Wa): Level 35
Ninja (E): Level 29
Black Belt (E): Level 26
Magus (E): Level 22
Sage (E): Level 18

Oh gee look what four classes are at the bottom. Note also that I NEVER USED ANYTHING EXCEPT THESE once I got them, so everything above them is actually underrated.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Elaborating on the FE tangent a bit more:

While getting everyone to equal levels represents clear favouritism for underlevelled characters (though it only becomes notable in cases like Nino and the trainees), it is actually defensible on the grounds that this is a very common playstyle. In FE, it is actually the most efficient use of your resources to focus on equal levels (and the favouritism this entails), because two Level 15 PCs are better on average than a Level 18 and Level 10 PC (which would probably be an equivalent amount of kills, since Exp is curved against higher levelled PCs). Some players (possibly even the majority) will play this way, and so get the equal levels we see in the DL.

On the other hand, I've never heard of anyone trying to level all jobs equally in FF3. It doesn't make sense. The game does not reward this. The game actually rewards sticking with a single job for the long haul, making switches (sometimes temporary) only when it is extremely efficient to do so (e.g. everyone goes mage for mini sections, Dragoons for Garuda, Scholar for Great Tree, so on). And literally the only way to do this is to stop using a set of jobs as soon as you get a new one. Forever. And never touch them again. Any other playstyle will lead to an imbalance towards earlier jobs, including optimum ones. So yeah, equal JLs in FF3DS makes no sense.

[Talaysen]

PS4 stat topic says: Rika Level 47, Rune Level 39

Hmm. Well obviously they aren't equal level. What gives? A few other games do similar things. Determining DL level has always been a game-by-game thing. In this case, what you're proposing would reflect FF3 clearly less well than Meeple's method. Generally we go with the best reflection possible.

Equal EXP.  Whatever.  You freaking know what I mean.

You don't? <_< Well, certainly, you don't have to. But you don't have to stick to a late class for every battle after you get it, either. The proportion should be preserved, even if you want to argue some job changing (and uh, we don't usually assume job changing in the DL, see DL Knight being entirely Knight for growth).

This brings up another point.  Say... one of the lategame classes like Ninja.  You CANNOT have a Ninja from L1 to L55.  It's impossible.  Another reason why I disagree with ranking classes because it's impossible to have them all built up from L1 to endgame.  It's impossible to even have them at whatever we're considering DL-legal to be.  I think it's only possible for Freelancer even.

I'm not going to bother arguing equal EXP anymore.  I THOUGHT we assumed equal EXP for characters in games but I guess I was wrong.  Whatever.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Equal EXP.  Whatever.  You freaking know what I mean.

I was hoping you'd say that. Equal final Exp doesn't always work either! Consider that some games have everyone start at "0 Exp", regardless of their level (want to say one of the BoFs does? I know I've seen it, but where is slipping my mind). We don't dump a million Exp into everyone if one person joins at game start and the other joins in the final dungeon. We try to have something that might actually happen in game.

This brings up another point.  Say... one of the lategame classes like Ninja.  You CANNOT have a Ninja from L1 to L55.  It's impossible.

Fortunately it's also irrelevant, except for Job Level and HP, but HP barely makes a difference anyway. For what it's worth I'd probably assume every FF3 class has average HP growth before the point in the game when they join; only fair way to do it.

It occurs to me in the quote I made, I was thinking of FFT Knight, not FF3 (FFT growth actually matters a bit). Mental slip there. <_<

[DjinnAndTonic]

Does this mean characters like Dart, Lazlo, Riou, etc. with mains who cannot be taken out of the party ever should be considered to have a higher level than the rest of their cast? What should be considered endgame level? The main's level or everyone else's level if you levelled them all equally?

If we're treating classes like characters, then the classes should be given equal growth opportunities, right?  I can sort of see both sides of this. Most of the ranked games do it one way, in spite of how it may have worked in-game. However, it doesn't fit the spirit of the game at all to view FF3's jobs this way. It's really hard to figure out what endgame level for each job 'should be', though, isn't it? How does this get decided?

-Djinn

[Dark Holy Elf]

Does this mean characters like Dart, Lazlo, Riou, etc. with mains who cannot be taken out of the party ever should be considered to have a higher level than the rest of their cast?

No, because any DL character is considered to be in the party as much as possible. Thus all reach the same level. Saying that "the chance of being used" is worth less than "must be used" for level opens terrible doors like saying that S2 Valeria/Kasumi should be taken at low levels because each is only picked half the time and thus half the time they get no levels at all. Much like an FE character debate, the DL must assume any character is fully used.

The DL does not assume equal levels for everyone in a single playthrough. Levelling everyone equally in a large cast game like Shining Force would result in an extremely low average level; we don't use this. We assume one party is used, typically, and assume that each DL character is in this party for their own matches.

[DjinnAndTonic]

So then the question becomes - should late joiners be given a level penalty? Or characters that become unavailable for long periods of the game? Alternately - what about characters that join far overlevelled?

-Djinn

[Grefter]

Not uncommon to see late joiners get a level penalty and high level types get a level bonus.  It comes up more with older games, newer stuff tends to have some kind of level scaling to bring about some kind of parity (See FE games for topical example).

I believe it is BoF 2 that you are thinking of with 0 Exp NEB, it has both scaling exp gains for low level characters (does not display the bonus) and variation on the exp required to level tweaked to take into account when they join as well.  BoF 2 is kind of a weird in between.

FF3 classes are in the "Sorry out of luck you get shafted cause you aren't available and don't get any in game scalar bonus for it other than your inherent strength.  Deal with it or get the fuck out." school there, blame it being old (or built around old mechanics) and more user unfriendly with slightly out of wack class balance (Certain classes scaling better in games with levels than others).

[hinode]

In general, I'd said the breakdown goes as following:

-Games with purely linear exp gain, a linear plot, and straightforward recruitment time get equal exp in the DL (i.e. Phantasy Star IV).  Level gaps in game are both patently obvious and non-controversial.

-Games where exp gain is very sharply increased for lower level PCs (i.e. FFT, modern FEs) get equal level in the DL, since level gaps will generally equal out over time in these games.  It may not be entirely fair for someone like Nino, but most people aren't going to care enough to carefuly math out a roughly equivalent level just for one PC.

-Games with huge casts (i.e. Pokemon, Chrono Cross, Saga Frontier to the extent that it has levels) get equal levels for the sake of sanity.  Nobody is ever going to figure out what exactly is a fair level for each and every PC, so equal levels are used even if it isn't "fair" for super late joiners like Tyranitar.

-Fire Emblem 2 gets a special note for having exp gain sharply dropping with increasing levels, which promptly increase significantly again upon promotion dropping level down to 1 again.  This creates a situation where the classes that promote early get a huge advantage in-game, and the only class that needs to wait until L20 will never promote without heaving grinding.  This was a big enough clusterfuck to make me abandon any attempt stat topicing the game, since equal levels look absolutely nothing like in-game for stats, and just remembering this made me want to rant about it.

[Grefter]

Oh man I was going to say at the start of FE2 bit that this sounds a lot like Shining Force levels, but it is far worse even.  Fail.

[DjinnAndTonic]

Wanted to note that FE2 exp/promotion reminds me of Disgaea's Transmigration/Reincarnation system.

hinode's breakdown is pretty easy-to-follow, but I'm not quite sure where FF3's Job Levels fall under?

Also, are there many games that follow the linear plot/exp gain scenario? I'm having trouble thinking of any apart from PS4? AtL maybe?

[hinode]

DQ4 is the one example I can think of that's ranked; Nara levels very slowly compared to the other cast members, for instance. Think PS2 does as well, but too lazy to check the stat topic.

DQ2 does for an unranked example, to the point where the 3 PCs have different level caps (but similar exp caps).  DQ5 is a weird example where equal exp is given but not really the "fair" level to reflect in-game, since late joiners (most notably monsters) have much less exp than your current party members will, but trying to adjust exp levels accordingly to time of acquisition is a complete trainwreck.  Equal levels aren't used either because most monsters will gain 40 levels before Gigantos or Metal Babble gain 7.

[Meeplelard]

FE2's thing is...uhh...unique.  Basically, you hit a certain level, then you can promote.  What level you are able to promote varies from class to class and there's not really a reason to not promote ASAP since promoting = you're at level 1 = you start gaining EXP again!

Unlike other FE games, the game isn't tiered in classes; Level 1 is Level 1 despite what your class is.  Admittedly, since one class can actually promote back into villager, and get infinite levels as a result (think it was the Swordmaster chain?) this makes sense.

The end result is any class that promotes at a low level has the advantage.  Any class that promotes at a high level like, say, Female Wizards is pretty much boned the entire game since after a point they stop gaining EXP at a reasonable rate.  I know Celica's REAL advantage wasn't so much that she could use swords, but rather, she was a female mage who ACTUALLY PROMOTED at a reasonable point, thus can keep gaining levels for a longer time.

(well, also she got Angel at an early level which kills monsters but SHH!)

Phantasy Star 2 doesn't to the same extent.  There's a 1 level discrepancy compared to the average, I wanna say.  If Rolf is level 30, Hugh and Rudo will be like 29 and game worst while someone like...Amy? will be level 31.  Its not a big deal especially cause of how little PS2 stats matter.

[hinode]

Celica's other big advantage was that she was a healer who could gain exp without relying on @#$%%^^&&*%#$@$ inaccurate Drain.

[DjinnAndTonic]

So basically.. modern games all do levelling essentially the same way and only games that I haven't played (or haven't played in a LONG time and don't remember the levelling system) use the inequal levelling system?

Huh, are there any modern games with significantly different levelling systems? (Apart from CC/FFX/Saga-type levelling)

-Djinn

[Grefter]

There is of course different tendencies, but there is normally something there to make swapping characters a lot more player friendly these days, be it scaling exp gains based on level vs enemy level (FE or Suikoden), gaining exp while out of the party (even if at a reduced rate, see FF7 and many many other games)  All party members use universal exp value (this is more PC gaming thing).  There is a few other methods of varying spins, but the first two are the big ones you tend to see in console RPGs just off the top of my head.

Edit - And of course I neglect to mention that SMT manages to kind of do both the old way and the new way in varying styles and N1 games still have it arse backwards.

[Talaysen]

Pokemon games also have different EXP requirements for different pokemon.  I think it evens out by endgame though.  Rhapsody also has different levelling rates, but they may have changed that in the DS version.

Huh, are there any modern games with significantly different levelling systems? (Apart from CC/FFX/Saga-type levelling)

I thought you played Mana Khemia.  Go play Mana Khemia.  Right now.

[Grefter]

Holy shit, I wasn't even aware of different level rates in the Pokemans (also it has Exp Share/better clones in later generations as well if you want to count that as well) and I have played it a fair bit.  Good to know.

[Dark Holy Elf]

The most striking effect of it is that starters gain levels super-fast at low levels, then quickly slow down. This is why starters tend to be overpowered for the first 15-20% of the game or so.

[Grefter]

Can't say I noticed, but I put it down to either using them almost primarilly for some or just shitcanning them at first opportunity for others (ahaha GSC starter is Geodude)

[Niu]

On the art issue. I can dig out the Amano art for the boss characters.
Dark Cloud, Xande, Une, Dorga all have one.

[Meeplelard]

Cloud of Darkness isn't an issue anymore, given Dissidia Art (which I'm sure most people would prefer to Amano, given Amano seems...less than popular around here) came out recently.

Xande isn't too hard to find either. Dorga and Unei couldn't hurt tuough.

[SnowFire]

For what it's worth, I agree with giving early jobs a JP bonus over later jobs.  It does reflect what would happen if you "used" that class as much as you could in-game, and it's not likely that you'll top out over JL99 for jobs from the last two crystals.

This is a lot to ask with several requests already for possibly re-doing the stat topic, but...  has there been any consideration of doing the stat topic assuming that each class has access to everything except the JL99 items?  And by everything I mean ignoring the "uniqueness" clause, since if you have a Knight you probably don't have competition for people to use Ragnarok and Excalibur, if you have a Monk you don't also have a Black Belt to compete for unique claws, etc.    It'd reflect which classes can actually make use of the legendaries and are thus much better, since in-game you definitely want to use the legendary weapons.  It's different than normal, yes, but I think it'd reflect better on how the classes are in-game.